From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] aio: add aio_kernel_() interface Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:59:51 -0800 Message-ID: <20150127175951.GA6886@infradead.org> References: <1421163888-21452-1-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <1421163888-21452-2-git-send-email-ming.lei@canonical.com> <20150125133147.GA19445@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Dave Kleikamp , Jens Axboe , Zach Brown , Maxim Patlasov , Andrew Morton , Alexander Viro , Benjamin LaHaise , Linux FS Devel , "open list:AIO" To: Ming Lei Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-aio@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 12:18:23AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > Why do we keep these two separate? Especially having the iov passed > > No special meaning, just follow previous patches, :-) > > But one benefit is that we can separate the one-shot > initialization from submit, at least filep/complete/ki_ctx can be > set during initialization. FYI, I've posted another approach at async kernel reads/writes in the "[RFC] split struct kiocb" series. I thought I had you on Cc, but I messed it up. This keeps the separate init function, but it still feels a bit pointless to me. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ Don't email: aart@kvack.org